DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Why?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/17/2013 12:12:48 AM · #1
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pamb:
Originally posted by ubique:
Real art, or at least real contemporary art, does nothing if it's not confrontational in some way. It need not shock, but it ought to at least challenge something; ought to make the viewer feel uncomfortable, uncertain and disorientated. It ought to dare to explore beyond the comfortable boundaries of expectation.


Why? Why does Real Art have to be confrontational? Why does it need to challenge something? Why ought it make the viewer feel uncomfortable, uncertain and disorientated? Why?

Please, can we have this argument in a different thread? Can we devote THIS thread to exploring the nuances of the snapshotters and the contrivers for what they are, without worrying about all the OTHER kinds of art for once? Thanks :-)


From this thread.

Pam I can only suggest the answer is: Because the real artist say so!

Anyone else know the answer?

Message edited by author 2013-12-17 00:14:11.
 12/17/2013 12:14:37 AM · #2
First and last post from me in here.

Have fun.
 12/17/2013 12:21:51 AM · #3
So much contention over this subject. "Subject", that's an interesting word, reminds me of the word "subjective". Oh well, carry on.
 12/17/2013 12:28:42 AM · #4
Am I the only one that feels like this thread is calling out PamB?

I guess it must be the holidays, everyone on edge, some getting sent over the edge. But I'm thinking a bit bottle of Wine or rum needs to be passed around. Or maybe we all need to go to Colorado and smoke their special peace pipe.

Matt
 12/17/2013 12:37:59 AM · #5
Originally posted by MattO:
Am I the only one that feels like this thread is calling out PamB?

I guess it must be the holidays, everyone on edge, some getting sent over the edge. But I'm thinking a bit bottle of Wine or rum needs to be passed around. Or maybe we all need to go to Colorado and smoke their special peace pipe.

Matt

NO! She's definitely entitled to her opinion and it's a valid one. It's always an interesting discussion to have. But in the OTHER thread it was derailing a potentially valuable thread devoted to an entirely different topic.
 12/17/2013 12:45:11 AM · #6
Durango GTG then? Some hash and kind would probably mellow all of us out some... How's next week for everyone?
 12/17/2013 12:50:02 AM · #7
Originally posted by Cory:
Durango GTG then? Some hash and kind would probably mellow all of us out some... How's next week for everyone?


Family will be in, but heck maybe I'll bring them along, I'm sure getting granny hooked up with some good hemp will help her arthritis that is sure to be acting up in the cold winter days ahead!

Bear, opening a general discussion about what was being discussed between her and Don in the other thread is one thing. But pointing this thread directly at her is what I was referring too. No one(except the OP and SC) should be policing how or what a thread discussion evolves into in my opinion.

Matt
 12/17/2013 01:06:14 AM · #8
RKT is a legend in her own right, I wish I could be more like her! She is so way under-rated on here, but then again so are all the others you mentioned. I have come to view images a lot differently to how I use to from when I first joined here, and to all the others who can't see or won't then there's nothing I can say but maybe to just 'open your mind'!
 12/17/2013 01:11:26 AM · #9
See the other thread for details, but I think the core of the issue is that some folks don't have a darn clue what the word 'art' actually means, and everyone is getting so upset about this due to the fact that the term is being used in varying fashions. Might I suggest that interested parties take a few minutes to study the etymology of the word 'art' before retuning to this discussion.

Happy holidays everyone! :D
 12/17/2013 01:39:20 AM · #10
Originally posted by Cory:

To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc...
Why then, do we continue to accept that there is a large group here who defines art incorrectly in this way?


I think you are misunderstanding my view.
I have said that spontaneous photographs are usually more interesting than staged photographs.
And I have said that real art, at least in its contemporary context, ought to be confrontational or provoking in some way and at some level (because that's the point of art; anything else is just decor ... in my opinion).
But I have not stated nor implied that there's any defining connection between those two statements. That is, the second statement doesn't derive from the first, and nor does the first derive from the second.

I've also banged in lots of 'in my opinion' qualifiers in my recent posts but, as I expected, it made no difference to the level of indignation.

Message edited by author 2013-12-17 01:43:04.
 12/17/2013 01:53:53 AM · #11
Originally posted by Cory:

To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc...
Why then, do we continue to accept that there is a large group here who defines art incorrectly in this way?


If there is a large and undoubtedly ponderous group that defines art incorrectly in any way they should certainly by banned. anathema!

Spontaneity! Improvisation! Heaven forfend.
 12/17/2013 03:15:25 AM · #12
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by Cory:

To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc...
Why then, do we continue to accept that there is a large group here who defines art incorrectly in this way?


I think you are misunderstanding my view.
I have said that spontaneous photographs are usually more interesting than staged photographs.
And I have said that real art, at least in its contemporary context, ought to be confrontational or provoking in some way and at some level (because that's the point of art; anything else is just decor ... in my opinion).
But I have not stated nor implied that there's any defining connection between those two statements. That is, the second statement doesn't derive from the first, and nor does the first derive from the second.

I've also banged in lots of 'in my opinion' qualifiers in my recent posts but, as I expected, it made no difference to the level of indignation.


I think your view on this seems fine... There's some other sources of noise Paul. :)

While I do disagree that all contemporary art must be provocative, I also think you are more than intelligent enough to understand why that's almost certainly untrue.

Is a Mercedes provocative? Not really... But is it art? I think so. What about this new Surface I bought? Is it provocative? Nah... Art? I think so. (the list continues)
 12/17/2013 03:16:03 AM · #13
.1

Message edited by author 2013-12-17 03:16:49.
 12/17/2013 03:16:04 AM · #14
.2

Message edited by author 2013-12-17 03:16:40.
 12/17/2013 03:16:04 AM · #15
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by Cory:

To my eyes, nothing in the origin or meaning of the word art implies 'spontaneous' or 'improvisational' or 'unrefined' or 'incomplete' or etc...
Why then, do we continue to accept that there is a large group here who defines art incorrectly in this way?


If there is a large and undoubtedly ponderous group that defines art incorrectly in any way they should certainly by banned. anathema!

Spontaneity! Improvisation! Heaven forfend.


Bah, I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. Simply attempting to ensure that we're all speaking the same sort of English here.

Message edited by author 2013-12-17 03:17:33.
 12/17/2013 03:25:04 AM · #16
so what did you mean? I'm not quibbling about the definition of art, but trying to understand the meaning of your own words.
 12/17/2013 03:43:41 AM · #17
Originally posted by tnun:
so what did you mean? I'm not quibbling about the definition of art, but trying to understand the meaning of your own words.


I think my words meant just exactly what I was saying... You should know by now that I'm not much of one for simile or metaphor. :)

If you'd like clarification on some particular point, please do ask away.
 12/17/2013 04:51:33 AM · #18
12/17/2013 05:28:03 AM · #19
This is Art....

12/17/2013 07:29:31 AM · #20
Originally posted by MattO:
No one(except the OP and SC) should be policing how or what a thread discussion evolves into in my opinion

But who will police the police?
.
.
.
.
I dunno. Coastguard?
 12/17/2013 07:41:08 AM · #21
12/17/2013 08:09:17 AM · #22
There are questions that can never be satisfactorily answered, and "What is art?" is one of them. Art won't sit still enough for that. In my opinion (there I go again) we can know what art does, but not what it is. Recognise it by its presence, or by its absence, but not define it. And that's a good thing.

When this subject is raised in DPC forums, there are usually tiresome comments along the lines of, "Oh, not that again. We've argued about that forever here so please don't let's do it yet again." As if the lack of consensus makes the question futile. But it's the lack of consensus that makes the question matter. So that cry, "Oh, not that again" isn't a protest from the sated; it's a flag of intellectual surrender.

The words 'question' and 'quest' are related, ultimately from the Latin quaerere which means to ask or to seek. If you aren't relentlessly interested in the question, you certainly aren't participating in the quest. You've given up. One thing ΓΆ€“ the only thing ΓΆ€“ that I do know for certain about art: if you're not curious beyond satisfaction, you can never know and appreciate art. Nothing in art matters more than curiosity.

12/17/2013 08:32:50 AM · #23
art vs decor....

hmmmm.... I thought art was decor.

Ok -- back to the drawing board.
 12/17/2013 02:30:13 PM · #24
Originally posted by ubique:
There are questions that can never be satisfactorily answered, and "What is art?" is one of them. Art won't sit still enough for that. In my opinion (there I go again) we can know what art does, but not what it is.

As I read this one recognizes art by a feeling it arouses in one, not its intrinsic characteristics. That means that there can never be consensus about whether any particular creation is "art," nor questioning of the validity of something being "art" to me -- it may or may not be art to you, and either position is equally as valid as mine. I think we run into trouble when people feel that when someone says something isn't "art" to them, it carries the implication that their own opinion that it is is somehow invalidated, and they get defensive.

I'd also like to point out that just because something is (attempts to be) "confrontational" or disquieting doesn't automatically make it art either, as these recent examples probably show ...
12/17/2013 03:36:15 PM · #25
I never know how far to take this "everybody's opinion has equal validity" thing. Let's put visual art aside and consider the written word. Dan Brown is the most popular and commercially successful contemporary author, closely followed by the E L James. Some readers must think that the pap those authors produce is great literature. Maybe lots of readers do so. But it's not great literature at all; it's simply awful. That isn't up for debate ... the books of those authors are clumsy, clunky, nearly incoherent garbage. No reviewer would dispute that, no English teacher would dispute that, nobody who's ever read as few as half a dozen other books would dispute it. You could not dispute it and retain any literary credibility.

So it's pretty clear that when it comes to literature, everybody's opinion does not have equal validity. You cannot seriously compare Dan Brown with Hemingway or even with Stephen King. And you cannot compare EL James with anything at all.

Anyway, that's just in my opinion, which I suppose makes it valid given that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Ho ho.

Message edited by author 2013-12-17 15:41:22.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/25/2025 12:32:36 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/25/2025 12:32:36 PM EDT.